To a Treasury official, it would be evident based on the data he had. SARs contain certain information and do not contain other information.
Apparently his information matched what would be available in an SAR. Plus, if he had (illegal) access to Treasury records, he could access them, and
it would actually be easier to have that than to have illegal bank access.

A bank robber does not have to admit his crime in order to be convicted of bank robbery.

I know you were all gung ho about this information coming to light, but it looks like we're going to need a new Federal prison to hold the criminals
when all this is said and done. Illegal dissemination of private information, illegal dissemination of government information, extortion, attempted
extortion, probably attempted bribery of a government official, obstruction of justice... and who knows who else is going to be Avenatti's cell
mates?

This boy is gone... he is looking at hard time, massive fines, and as I said before, he is already disbarred, just waiting on the ink on the paperwork
to dry. Nothing anyone can say to try and excuse this will stop it; he's already plead guilty by releasing the info personally. At least Comey used a
friend to leak through.

I know you were all gung ho about this information coming to light, but it looks like we're going to need a new Federal prison to hold the criminals
when all this is said and done.

I think there is adequate room for team Trump.

As for Trump himself I don't think jail is in his immediate future, but definitely impeachment, which is unfortunate because Cohen, Manafort et al.
would be best punished by being forced to share a cell with Donald for a few years. That would be poetic justice.

As for the full throated defense of this corruption, you and team trump have lost the right to spout off about draining the swamp ever again.

Sunlight disinfects.

What we know already just in the public sphere has long ago spelled an end to Trump.

It is just more duplicitous blather and twaddle from Trumpites until the final act concludes.

Again, the point brought up is that he exposed his sources. Well, who's the source? Someone within the treasury? Someone within the bank system?

If we are going to make such claims, let's be specific.

SARs contain certain information and do not contain other information. Apparently his information matched what would be available in an SAR. Plus, if
he had (illegal) access to Treasury records, he could access them, and it would actually be easier to have that than to have illegal bank access.

Is it possible some or all of that information came about through discovery? If I am not mistaken, there is a lawsuit ongoing between Trump, Daniels
and Essentials LLC, which allegedly made the payment to Daniels.

A bank robber does not have to admit his crime in order to be convicted of bank robbery.

That's a false equivalence, but ok.

I know you were all gung ho about this information coming to light

I'm not sure what makes you say that, as I have not given any indication as to whether or not I am "gung ho" about anything. I'd prefer you stick to
what I have said and not what you decide to leak out of your backside.

but it looks like we're going to need a new Federal prison to hold the criminals when all this is said and done. Illegal dissemination of private
information, illegal dissemination of government information, extortion, attempted extortion, probably attempted bribery of a government official,
obstruction of justice... and who knows who else is going to be Avenatti's cell mates?

Exactly. Who knows? At this point we lack quite a bit of important information and context to come to any solid conclusion.

What you are doing is equal to going all-in on a poker table, while only seeing one of your cards. There are more to come. Don't make a fools bet.

This boy is gone... he is looking at hard time, massive fines, and as I said before, he is already disbarred, just waiting on the ink on the paperwork
to dry. Nothing anyone can say to try and excuse this will stop it; he's already plead guilty by releasing the info personally. At least Comey used a
friend to leak through.

We shall see. Again, we need to know a lot more before we can say anything with any sort of certainty. On the surface, it does not look good and that
may appeal to those who's political partisanship compels them to swim in the shallow end, but I will patiently wait for everything to come out.

What you have said has been said many times over and it turns out to be completely wrong when all the cards are laid out for all to see.

THIS one gets little coverage, but stands out to me because it typifies the "America First" philosophy of the Trump Administration.

Korean Aerospace Industries confirmed to The Washington Post that it paid $150,000 to Cohen’s company.

The company is in contention for a multibillion joint U.S. contract with Lockheed Martin for jet trainers. Lockheed said Wednesday it was not aware of
any connection between Korea Aerospace and Cohen.

A Korean aerospace company caught up in the latest Michael Cohen scandal is 'well placed' to win an Air Force contract worth up to $16.3
billionwww.businessinsider.com...

Deserving of it's own investigation.

The company said Wednesday that the payment to the Cohen-linked firm was for "legal consulting concerning accounting standards on production costs"
and that the money was sent at the end of the contract with the firm.

First, Cohen is no global accounting expert, obviously.

Second, Apparently like the others, this was a payment plan and this 150k was sent at the "end of the contract".
Which infers they paid much more than this.

Hmmmm.

The payments were made to Cohen in November. The government was set to award the contract by the end of 2017 but in October, Air Force Under Secretary
Matt Donovan told Defense News that the deadline would be pushed back to early 2018

I.see what you did there. Nevertheless, she is still more credible than Trump. If he truly loved this country he would resign, rather than allow the
country to witness the disgusting spectacle of his exposure.

Again, the point brought up is that he exposed his sources. Well, who's the source? Someone within the treasury? Someone within the bank system?

If we are going to make such claims, let's be specific.

OK, I see I have to take this slooooow...

There is a button in the upper right hand of every post. It looks like the little bubbles like in the cartoons, and it says "reply" next to it. If you
click that button, there is already some stuff in the box you type into that will look like the first line in this post after you post it.

That means you are "replying" to someone else's post!

Also, you can type "[quote]" at the beginning of what someone said in that first post you are replying to, copy what they said next to it, and
then type"[/quote]" after that and it will show what you copied as a quote.

Still with me? Good... now read carefully...

When you do all that, normal people assume you are talking about what the person you are replying to said, and mainly to the part that you quoted!

Ain't the Internet awesome!

Yes, I was referring to the fact that his sources apparently indicated the information came from SAR data.

Is it possible some or all of that information came about through discovery?

Not legally. It is strictly illegal to access the bank records of another person without a court order to do so, and court orders to do so only give
access to information which might be relevant to the case itself. In order to get a court order, one must have compelling evidence that a crime has
been committed. Daniels' case is not criminal. It is civil.

So there is no legal reason to grant access to bank records until an open hearing in which such access is formally requested, which there has not
been, and even if access were to be granted by a judge, the information about AT&T, Columbus Nova, etc. could not have been included.

So no, it is not even possible.

That's a false equivalence, but ok.

What is false? Both charges are felonies. You kept complaining that Avarnetti didn't admit to what his sources were, and I responded that he didn't
have to for them to be illegal.

I'm not sure what makes you say that, as I have not given any indication as to whether or not I am "gung ho" about anything.

Exactly. Who knows? At this point we lack quite a bit of important information and context to come to any solid conclusion.

We have enough to convict Avernetti already. Cohen... sure, I'll agree with that. Of course, everything Avernetti just disclosed is now inadmissible
in court, so that sways the scales a mite.

What you are doing is equal to going all-in on a poker table, while only seeing one of your cards. There are more to come. Don't make a fools
bet.

Talk about your false equivalencies!

Again, we need to know a lot more before we can say anything with any sort of certainty. On the surface, it does not look good and that may
appeal to those who's political partisanship compels them to swim in the shallow end, but I will patiently wait for everything to come out.

When you do all that, normal people assume you are talking about what the person you are replying to said, and mainly to the part that you quoted!

Ain't the Internet awesome!

Yes, I was referring to the fact that his sources apparently indicated the information came from SAR data.

That is all fine and dandy, but there is a problem.

While it may be reasonable to suggest it would be evident to a Treasury official who the sources could possibly be, it is not evident in the lawyer's
statement. That was the question that was asked. "where does he state anything about his sources?"

I asked a very specific question to a very specific claim. Your answer does not touch on that specific aspect and that is why I asked the additional
follow up. It was clear that you were not understanding the premise of the original question and you were moving the focus on to who the sources could
be. Not who the lawyer claimed the source to be.

Two separate issues altogether.

Not legally. It is strictly illegal to access the bank records of another person without a court order to do so, and court orders to do so only give
access to information which might be relevant to the case itself. In order to get a court order, one must have compelling evidence that a crime has
been committed. Daniels' case is not criminal. It is civil. So there is no legal reason to grant access to bank records until an open hearing in which
such access is formally requested, which there has not been, and even if access were to be granted by a judge, the information about AT&T, Columbus
Nova, etc. could not have been included. So no, it is not even possible.

Now that goes directly to the question that was asked. Thank you.

Could you provide a source for that information, including the specific laws involved that would apply? I like to read up myself.

What is false? Both charges are felonies.

That does not make them comparable.

You kept complaining that Avarnetti didn't admit to what his sources were, and I responded that he didn't have to for them to be illegal.

I did not complain. I was asking a question of someone that made a specific claim, which still has yet to be answered. I'm being a bit of a smartass
in asking for that info, as I know it has not been revealed, but it goes to show the claims others have made is false, as of now.

I've not made any absolute statement in regards to this topic. Your perception is not my problem.

When has it been said "many times over" that improper acquisition and dissemination of bank records before a trial is illegal, and then turned out
that it wasn't? Try getting someone's bank records and publishing them, see how legal it is... no, scratch that. You might just try it and I don't
want to see you end up in jail over wanton ignorance.

It's been said many times that certain situations are done. Someone is going to jail...someone is guilty of x, y, or z. ANd it seems more often than
not, some information comes out that changes the context and people end up looking like fools.

You want to condemn a man before we have all the info, go for it.

I will gladly sit back and wait. No matter the outcome, I have no egg on my face.

You, on the other hand, have all you chips on the table and are hoping for a lucky flop.

Avenatti, whose revelations have since been verified by the Times and others, is doing exactly what Woodward and Bernstein did in Watergate —
following the money. By doing so he has unveiled an example of collusion so flagrant that it made Trump and Rudy Giuliani suddenly go mute: a Putin
crony’s cash turns out to be an essential component of the racketeering scheme used to silence Stormy Daniels and thus clear Trump’s path to the
White House in the final stretch of the 2016 election. Like the Nixon campaign slush fund that Woodward and Bernstein uncovered, this money trail also
implicates corporate players hoping to curry favor with a corrupt president. Back then it was the telecommunications giant ITT, then fending off
antitrust suits from the government, that got caught red-handed; this time it’s AT&T. Both the Nixon and Trump slush funds were initially set up to
illegally manipulate an American presidential election, hush money included. But the Watergate burglars’ dirty tricks, criminal as they were, were
homegrown. Even Nixon would have drawn the line at colluding with Russians — or, in those days, the Soviets — to sabotage the Democrats.

There have been statements from others that the information was consistent with SAR data. I am basing my assumption (and it is an assumption at this
point) on that. It seems logical to me that the information would have been more easily available through a Treasury or investigative leak.

Also, I do not see how someone hacking a bank account directly could accidentally get two different persons' records with the same name. Avernatti
did.

And in any case, no matter the source, he does not have a right to the information he just published.

That does not make them comparable.

Actually, it does.

What exactly made you say that? Something I said, or just a feeling you have?

Yeah, the feeling of disgust that someone is trying to tell me the dog goes "mooo!"

Convict of what? What exactly is the charge against him and what evidence, with proper sources, do you have?

I already listed the possible charges.

Also, swaying the scales implies that a situation is leaning in one direction or another. It is not absolute. You statement of having enough to
convict is an absolute statement.

You are confusing the legal status of Avernatti (pretty much a given at this point) with the legal status of Cohen (questionable).

I did not complain. I was asking a question of someone that made a specific claim, which still has yet to be answered. I'm being a bit of a
smartass in asking for that info, as I know it has not been revealed, but it goes to show the claims others have made is false, as of now.

That same statement can be applied more to Cohen than to Avernatti. But Avernatti has published confidential information he has no right to have. I
consider that pretty damning evidence that he legally wasn't supposed to have the information he obviously has.

Not quite. It accurately represents the position you are taking. You are going all in from a position of ignorance.

The following are not statements of ignorance:

Avernatti published financial information on Michael Cohen.

The information published is confidential except under court order.

No court order authorizes the publication of evidence found.

There is no record of Avernatti obtaining a court order.

The information published lies outside the scope of Avernatti's case.

A court order will not include information outside the scope of the case.

Avernatti's case is civil, not criminal.

Civil cases are considered secondary to criminal cases.

There is a criminal investigation ongoing that includes Cohen's financial (and other) records.

Exactly which of those statements are based on
'ignorance'?

You want to condemn a man before we have all the info, go for it.

We have the information listed above. Show me a possible scenario in which no crime was committed, and I will back off.

There have been statements from others that the information was consistent with SAR data.

That may be true.

I am basing my assumption (and it is an assumption at this point) on that. It seems logical to me that the information would have been more easily
available through a Treasury or investigative leak. Also, I do not see how someone hacking a bank account directly could accidentally get two
different persons' records with the same name. Avernatti did. And in any case, no matter the source, he does not have a right to the information he
just published.

Would it not be wise to wait to get specifics before we make absolute statements about his guilt? I'd hate to condemn a man, or even create a
narrative about his guilt, without knowing the facts.

Actually, it does.

No. It does not.

That's like saying possession of an illegal substance is comparable to murder because they are both felonies.

Yeah, the feeling of disgust that someone is trying to tell me the dog goes "mooo!"

Your feelings or emotions are not necessarily indicative of what is true.

I already listed the possible charges.

Ok. What evidence do you have with proper sources?

You are confusing the legal status of Avernatti (pretty much a given at this point) with the legal status of Cohen (questionable).

No. I believe you are confusing your feelings for fact and trying to sell it to the rest of us.

Again, you are coming from a place of ignorance, which we all are in at this point, and making absolute statements from that position of ignorance.

That same statement can be applied more to Cohen than to Avernatti. But Avernatti has published confidential information he has no right to have. I
consider that pretty damning evidence that he legally wasn't supposed to have the information he obviously has.

Ok. That has nothing to do with your claim of me complaining.

Exactly which of those statements are based on 'ignorance'?

It is the conclusion you came to that is based on ignorance. You cannot state that someone is guilty without all the facts being laid out. As of now,
the list you have may be completely true, but we will not know without more context.

We have the information listed above. Show me a possible scenario in which no crime was committed, and I will back off.

What you posted is not information. It is accusation.

We have to have evidence, coupled with the specific laws to say anything for certain.

Perhaps you could list the specific laws that apply here and we could go from there.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.